Pope Francis gives church hundreds of new saints...

[Thomas Helwys]

But see what happened only two verses later: It was the very next thing. They didn't wait to see if the jailer's conversion was for real. They didn't wait until morning where the baptism could have been a public display. They baptized the jailer and his family (who may or may not have heard the gospel along with him). You have to read scripture with a view of what they actually did as well as what they said.

Baptismal regeneration was believed from the beginning--by Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc.--and it certainly is not an error.

And they were all Roman Catholics, and so is God.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

No, he read scripture with an open mind under the leadership of the Holy Spirit. It's the likes of you, not the likes of him, who have apostatized. And I say this with complete charity. You don't realize how much you are overlooking in the Bible, not because you choose to ignore it but because you are conditioned to ignore it. There are passages and concepts that you never see, not because you skip over them but because you don't realize their significance.

Oh, you mean like all the dogmas about Mary that have not one iota of scriptural support, or the doctrine of papal infallibility? Rome believes in continuing revelation, like the cults do.

 

[Walter]

Sure. I just realized one day that the people in the Baptist churches that I've been associated with or a member of tend to take Brother/Pastor's ________ words as gospel without any validation from scripture. Sure, they would read the scripture during the sermon, but agree completely with the pastor's interpretation of it in a lemming like fashion. Yet, they would eagerly turn and accuse others of blasphemy, following a cult, being brain washed, etc. Hmmm... Does this sound familiar to those here?

Ultimately, the hypocrisy just got to me. Then the Holy Spirit started working on me and guiding me into studying the history of the Church. It's really the standard story... I was trying to find out how the early church worshiped and practiced, which led me straight into the arms of Catholicism. No one ever approached me or tried to convert me - the Holy Spirit did that. I went and talked to a priest about getting into RCIA, and the rest is history.
Well, that's it in a nut shell.

WM

I would have to say it happened to me much in the same way.

 

[DHK]

I would have to say it happened to me much in the same way.

The history of the so-called "church" vs. doctrinal truth found in the Bible?
I know what I would choose. I was given the same offer as a Catholic, and I know I chose correctly.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The history of the so-called "church" vs. doctrinal truth found in the Bible?
I know what I would choose. I was given the same offer as a Catholic, and I know I chose correctly.

I see it that the choice your making is the history of the "church" (or actual history) vs. doctrinal truth as you understand it with selected verses to support your already held belief. Rather than what scriptures taken as a whole taking it for what it actually says.

 

[WestminsterMan]

The history of the so-called "church" vs. doctrinal truth found in the Bible?
I know what I would choose. I was given the same offer as a Catholic, and I know I chose correctly.

Now now DHK, you are mis-representing things a bit here. According to everything you've posted you are from a Cathoic family - I'm from a Baptist one. I live in the veritable buckle on the bible belt that is overwhelmingly Protestant and I think you're from a predominately Catholic area. The choices were hardly the same. Be honest now...

WM

 

[Zenas]

There is not one indication of any person being baptized before they were saved or as a requirement of salvation; not one.
The jailer believed. Then they went to his house and he was baptized. His household first heard the gospel, were saved, and then were baptized.

The Ethiopian eunuch first believed, and then was baptized.

The 3,000 first believed and then were baptized.

Every example in the Bible: baptism is given after salvation--not before and not as a requirement. Baptismal regeneration is a heresy; a doctrine of demons.

We can reasonably infer that Paul and Silas imparted the gospel to the jailer, who believed before he was baptized. However, there is not one word to suggest the gospel was similarly imparted to the jailer's household. Not one word.

There are at least three examples (probably four but I can only think of three) where entire households were baptized--Cornelius, Lydia and the Philippian jailer. Nowhere is there any mention of imparting the gospel to everyone in the house, and certainly no mention of them all believing. Note that all these examples refer to the house or the household, and there is virtually 100% probability that one or more of these households included babies and young children. So, DHK, your supposition that the gospel was always preached and the people always believed before being baptized is just that--a supposition and a very tenuous one at that.

 

[Zenas]

And they were all Roman Catholics, and so is God.

As a matter of fact they were Catholics, although Rome had not yet become the center of gravity of the Christian world at that time.

 

[Zenas]

Oh, you mean like all the dogmas about Mary that have not one iota of scriptural support, or the doctrine of papal infallibility? Rome believes in continuing revelation, like the cults do.

You need to go back and read my Post #95. The fact of the matter is there is a great deal of scriptural support for the dogmas pertaining to Mary and the pope. You just don't recognize it when you see it and when it is pointed out to you, you would probably say something like, "That can't be what it means."

I will hasten to add that something doesn't have to be in scripture for it to be a theological truth. Jesus didn't tell His apostles to write a New Testament, He told them to preach, teach and baptize. That is the job of the Church today, to impart the gospel and contend for the truth which was once for all handed down to the saints. Scripture is the inspired and infallible word of God but it does not purport to contain the complete message.

You are wrong about the Catholic Church believing in continuing revelation, at least to the extent it is binding on everyone. The Church believes in public revelation, which ended with the death of the last apostle which is applicable to us all. They also believe in private revelation, which may be imparted to certain persons for their own edification but cannot ever rise to the level of dogma to be followed by everyone.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

You need to go back and read my Post #95. The fact of the matter is there is a great deal of scriptural support for the dogmas pertaining to Mary and the pope. You just don't recognize it when you see it and when it is pointed out to you, you would probably say something like, "That can't be what it means."

I will hasten to add that something doesn't have to be in scripture for it to be a theological truth. Jesus didn't tell His apostles to write a New Testament, He told them to preach, teach and baptize. That is the job of the Church today, to impart the gospel and contend for the truth which was once for all handed down to the saints. Scripture is the inspired and infallible word of God but it does not purport to contain the complete message.

You are wrong about the Catholic Church believing in continuing revelation, at least to the extent it is binding on everyone. The Church believes in public revelation, which ended with the death of the last apostle which is applicable to us all. They also believe in private revelation, which may be imparted to certain persons for their own edification but cannot ever rise to the level of dogma to be followed by everyone.

The reason that the EOC and Old Catholics exist apart from the Roman Church is because of the latter's doctrines that "developed" centuries after the early church. Maybe you can explain how that is different from what groups like the Mormons believe, teach, and do. Now I am not putting Mormons and RC's into the same group because I don't believe the Mormons are orthodox at all, whereas I do believe the RCC does contain orthodox teachings, albeit I still consider the RCC on the fringe of orthodoxy, based on some of the things I have pointed out here.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

As a matter of fact they were Catholics, although Rome had not yet become the center of gravity of the Christian world at that time.

Oh, please.

Small 'c' catholics encompass all Christians. Capital 'C' Catholics are an institution, a denomination.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

We can reasonably infer that Paul and Silas imparted the gospel to the jailer, who believed before he was baptized. However, there is not one word to suggest the gospel was similarly imparted to the jailer's household. Not one word.

There are at least three examples (probably four but I can only think of three) where entire households were baptized--Cornelius, Lydia and the Philippian jailer. Nowhere is there any mention of imparting the gospel to everyone in the house, and certainly no mention of them all believing. Note that all these examples refer to the house or the household, and there is virtually 100% probability that one or more of these households included babies and young children. So, DHK, your supposition that the gospel was always preached and the people always believed before being baptized is just that--a supposition and a very tenuous one at that.

There is no evidence that any of these households contained children. Even if they did, there is not one iota of scriptural support for anyone being baptized who did not believe first.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Oh, please.

Small 'c' catholics encompass all Christians. Capital 'C' Catholics are an institution, a denomination.

Well... history doesn't show that to be the case.

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

There is no evidence that any of these households contained children. Even if they did, there is not one iota of scriptural support for anyone being baptized who did not believe first.

Do you actually believe that these families didn't have any children? What the heck do you think they were doing?

WM

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Well... history doesn't show that to be the case.

WM

Actually, it does. The only way to maintain otherwise is to read later institutionalism back into the early churches. The word "catholic" meant universal, not an institution such as the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[DHK]

Do you actually believe that these families didn't have any children? What the heck do you think they were doing?

WM

Do you actually believe that the planet Pluto is made of green cheese.
Go ahead. Look it up. You will find it in Hezekiah 3:4.
But if you believe there is a case made for infant baptism in the Bible you are gullible enough to believe anything. And like many others you will read anything you want to into the Bible no matter how ridiculous it may be.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Do you actually believe that these families didn't have any children? What the heck do you think they were doing?

WM

I'm saying the text does not specifically state there were children. And I also said even if there were, there is still no instance of anyone in scripture being baptized who did not first believe. If you know of such, please point it out. I'll be waiting..... In one such case of these households, it even states that the whole household believed. Can infants believe?

 

[DHK]

We can reasonably infer that Paul and Silas imparted the gospel to the jailer, who believed before he was baptized. However, there is not one word to suggest the gospel was similarly imparted to the jailer's household. Not one word.

There are at least three examples (probably four but I can only think of three) where entire households were baptized--Cornelius, Lydia and the Philippian jailer. Nowhere is there any mention of imparting the gospel to everyone in the house, and certainly no mention of them all believing. Note that all these examples refer to the house or the household, and there is virtually 100% probability that one or more of these households included babies and young children. So, DHK, your supposition that the gospel was always preached and the people always believed before being baptized is just that--a supposition and a very tenuous one at that.

The jailer's family: jailer and wife.
Four children: three sons and one daughter--all unmarried.
Two twin sons, both 16; one 18 year old daughter and a 20 year old son.
Since none are married, no small children, and no grandchidren.
All servants are single.
Therefore there were no infants baptized in the household. Your theory does not fly. My facts are historically correct, far more accurate than yours. They come from the same source however--silence.

 

[WestminsterMan]

I'm saying the text does not specifically state there were children. And I also said even if there were, there is still no instance of anyone in scripture being baptized who did not first believe. If you know of such, please point it out. I'll be waiting..... In one such case of these households, it even states that the whole household believed. Can infants believe?

Well not everything is in scripture is it....

WM

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Well not everything is in scripture is it....

WM

Right. Like infant baptism, Mariolatry, papal infallibility, etc.